International Relations

FSI researchers strive to understand how countries relate to one another, and what policies are needed to achieve global stability and prosperity. International relations experts focus on the challenging U.S.-Russian relationship, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan and the limitations of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

Foreign aid is also examined by scholars trying to understand whether money earmarked for health improvements reaches those who need it most. And FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center has published on the need for strong South Korean leadership in dealing with its northern neighbor.

FSI researchers also look at the citizens who drive international relations, studying the effects of migration and how borders shape people’s lives. Meanwhile FSI students are very much involved in this area, working with the United Nations in Ethiopia to rethink refugee communities.

Trade is also a key component of international relations, with FSI approaching the topic from a slew of angles and states. The economy of trade is rife for study, with an APARC event on the implications of more open trade policies in Japan, and FSI researchers making sense of who would benefit from a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States.

The seminar is expected to provide a foundation for a new study examining the role of LNG imports for Brazilian natural gas markets centered at the Instituto Economia (IE) at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Meeting attendees included experts from UFRJ, Brazilian state oil and gas company Petrobras, and experts on North American and European natural gas markets. The meeting discussed the operation of the key Atlantic Basin gas markets that will drive the development of future LNG trade, considering the potential role of Brazil in the future market for LNG.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Encina Hall E419-B
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 724-1714 (650) 724-1717
0
Research Fellow
MHayes.jpg

Mark H. Hayes was recently a Research Fellow with the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD). He lead PESD's research on global natural gas markets, including studies of the growing trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the future for gas demand growth in China.

Dr. Hayes has developed models to analyze the impact of growing LNG imports on U.S. and European gas markets with special attention to seasonality and the opportunity for arbitrage using LNG ships and regasification capacity. From 2002 to 2005, Dr. Hayes managed the Geopolitics of Natural Gas Project, a study of critical political and financial factors affecting investment in cross-border gas trade projects. The study culminated in an edited book volume published by Cambridge University Press.

Prior to coming to Stanford, Mark worked as a financial analyst at Morgan Stanley in New York City. He was a member of the Global Power and Utilities Group, where he was involved in mergers and acquisitions, financing and corporate restructuring.

In 2006 he completed his Ph.D. in the Interdisciplinary Program on Environment and Resources at Stanford University. After completing his Ph.D. at Stanford, Mark has taken a position at RREEF Infrastructure Investments, San Francisco, CA. Mark also has a B.A. in Geology from Colgate University and an M.A. in International Policy Studies from Stanford. From 1999 to 2002 he served on the Board of Trustees of Colgate University.

Mark Hayes Speaker
Conferences
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

PESD director David G. Victor testifies to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that the U.S.-India nuclear deal currently being debated by Congress could have a large impact on greenhouse gas emissions and be a major step towards engaging developing countries in the fight against climate change.

David Victor shows that by displacing coal-fired electricity generation, the U.S.-India nuclear deal could realize carbon dioxide emission reductions that rival the European Union's efforts under the Kyoto Protocol and far exceed previous efforts to engage developing countries in combating climate change.

Hero Image
CapitolBldg logo
All News button
1
Paragraphs

The debate over the India nuclear deal has been too one-dimensional. Nearly all commentary has focused on whether this proposal would undermine efforts to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Dissent along these lines has been based on a series of largely overblown claims. And the singular focus on proliferation has allowed the debate to lose sight of other ways that this deal is in the interests of the United States and India alike.

Chief among those other reasons is environmental. The fuller use of commercial nuclear power, if done to exacting standards of safety and protection against proliferation, can play an important role as part of a larger strategy to slow the growth in emissions of the gases that cause global warming. That's because nuclear power emits essentially no carbon dioxide (CO2), the most prevalent of these so-called "greenhouse gases." While this benefit is hardly the chief reason for initiating this deal, with time it will become one of the main benefits from the arrangement. The nuclear deal probably will lead India to emit substantially less CO2 than it would if the country were not able to build such a large commercial nuclear fleet. The annual reductions by the year 2020 alone will be on the scale of all of the European Union's efforts to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments. In addition, if this arrangement is successful it will offer a model framework for a more effective way to engage developing countries in the global effort to manage the problem of climate change. No arrangement to manage climate change can be adequately successful without these countries' participation; to date the existing schemes for encouraging these countries to make an effort have failed; a better approach is urgently needed.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
PESD
Authors
David G. Victor
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Michael Wara shows while inducing significant participation by developing countries, the Clean Development Mechanism has failed to realize its full environmental potential. Reductions are much smaller than claimed, politicization is prominent, and the scheme has done little to encourage the profound changes in energy technology needed to address climate change.

All News button
1
Authors
Mark H. Hayes
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The anticipated title from Cambridge University Press has been released in hard-cover and is available for purchase. Edited by PESD director, David Victor, Rice professor Amy Jaffe, and PESD fellow Mark Hayes, the book sheds light on the political challenges which may accompany a shift to a natural gas-fed world.

Energy is on the front burner and will stay there, so this book has special value. Read it and learn about the topic of today and tomorrow and tomorrow.

- George P. Shultz, United States Secretary of State, 1982-1989

The coming phase of energy industry development is bringing with it the rapid globalisation of the gas business. Long term take-or-pay contracts, which align supply and demand and which formed the foundation of all successful projects in the past, are coming under pressure from liberalisation. But security of supply still depends on security of demand: this timely and authoritative study demonstrates that, if gas is to

fulfil its enormous promise as an energy source, new ways must be found to establish the confidence of both sides that secure supply will be matched by reliable demand

- Frank Chapman, CEO, BG Group plc

This is a very valuable addition to the global literature on energy issues and energy policy ... Natural Gas and Geopolitics goes deep into the global gas policy issues that affect critical US energy policy, not only looking backward but helping understand what may happen as the global natural gas market develops.

- Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, United States Secretary of Energy, 1998 2001

Hero Image
Natural Gas and Geopolitcs logo
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Global warming is one of the most difficult and important challenges facing the international community. To date, the most substantial effort to address this problem is the Kyoto Protocol. Although not adopted by the United States or Australia, this international agreement was adopted and ratified by every other large developed country and entered into force on February 16th, 2005. The Protocol is likely the largest ever international effort to combat a global environmental commons problem.

The Clean Development Mechanism ("CDM") is a market based trading mechanism

created by the Kyoto Protocol that functions by delivering a subsidy to the developing world in return for lower emissions of greenhouse gases. The subsidy offsets the cost of reducing GHG emissions, thereby encouraging less developed countries to emit less GHG than they otherwise would. As such, it represents the first attempt to address a global atmospheric commons problem using a global market. During the past 18 months, the CDM took on roughly the shape that it will likely have during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

The goal of this paper will be to describe in some detail what that broad outline looks like and also what it can teach us about the design of future treaty architectures aimed at the control of GHG emissions and global warming.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper #56
Authors

616 Serra St.
Encina Hall E415
Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 723-2136 (650) 724-1717
0
Jeremy_Carl_June_2011.jpg

Jeremy Carl is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution whose work focuses on energy and environmental policy, with particular emphasis on energy security, climate policy, and global fossil fuel markets. In addition, he writes extensively on US-India relations and Indian politics.

Before coming to Stanford, he was a  research fellow in resource and development economics at the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), India’s leading energy and environmental policy organization.

He is the editor of Conversations about Energy: How the Experts See America’s Energy Choices, and his work has appeared in numerous publications including the Journal of Energy Security, Energy Security Challenges for the 21st Century, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, and Papers on International Environmental Negotiation.

In addition to his work on energy, the environment, and India, Jeremy has written about a variety of other issues related to U.S. politics and public policy; Jeremy’s work has been featured in and cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsweek, South China Morning Post, Indian Express, and many other leading newspapers and magazines. He has advised and assisted numerous groups including the World Bank, the United Nations, and the staff of the U.S. Congress.

Jeremy received a BA with distinction from Yale University. He holds an MPA from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and did doctoral work at Stanford University, where he was a Packard Foundation Stanford Graduate Fellow.

Research Fellow
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

PESD partners Katharine Gratwick, Rebecca Ghanadan and Anton Eberhard have completed a case study on the experience of IPPs in Tanzania. The latest report is in addition to the PESD run study, Experience with Independent Power Projects in Developing Countries, exploring the factors that explain the patterns in IPP investment, and the legal and institutional mechanisms that could make the IPP mode of investment more sustainable. The Management Program Infrastructure Reform & Regulation (MIR) team has also revised previous case studies on Kenya and Egypt.

All News button
1
Authors
Nadejda M. Victor
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
For Victor's detailed analysis, presented at a recent G8 Energy summit, click on the International Conference on Energy and Security event or directly download the presentation below.

Three months ago the Russian energy giant Gazprom forced Ukraine to pay sharply higher prices for natural gas. At the time, the story was portrayed as a political struggle for control in Kiev. But last week Gazprom announced it was tripling gas prices in Belarus, a country that is politically close to the Kremlin. Moldova has been forced to accept a doubling of prices over the next three to four years, and the other former Soviet republics are already paying market prices for Russian gas.

The truth is that these price increases are not political. Rather, they reflect worrisome economic and geological facts about Russian gas fields. The Kremlin is not simply trying to use Gazprom to reassert authority in Belarus, Ukraine or anywhere else. There are in fact deep problems with Gazprom -- problems created by its inefficient management and a looming decline in gas production.

Russia controls over a quarter of the world's gas reserves -- more than any other country. Most of the known Russian reserves (about 80 percent) are in west Siberia and concentrated in a handful of giant and super-giant gas fields. Since the early 1970s the rate of discovery for these new fields has been declining. Moreover, output from the country's mainstay super-giant fields is also steadily falling.

Huge investments are needed to replace this dwindling supply, and all the options for new production will prove costly and difficult. New fields in the far north and east of the country are distant from most of Russia's people and export markets, requiring wholly new transport systems such as pipelines. Moreover, most of these fields are found in extremely harsh environments where it is technically and financially difficult to operate.

Gazprom controls neither the capital nor the technology that will be needed. The state-controlled company is already deeply in debt and burdened by many expensive obligations, such as supplying Russia's population and friends with cheap gas. The company has to work with foreign partners.

So far Gazprom has been able to forestall crisis. Economic stagnation across the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe since 1990 dampened gas demand. Russia, which had a surplus at the time, sharply increased its gas exports and made contractual commitments that will remain in force for many years.

But following the long stagnation, Russia's internal gas consumption is rising again as the economy expands. And new Russian policies to promote development of the country's eastern regions will, in the next few years, require large new commitments to supply gas to that region (along with spending on railroads, airports and other infrastructure).

Even when the Russian economy was in the doldrums the country was notable as a large gas consumer because of its extremely inefficient energy system. Today Russia is the world's second-largest gas user, after the United States, although its economy is only one-twentieth the size of the U.S. economy.

Electricity in Russia is produced for the most part by gas, but the country's gas-fired electric generators work at 33 percent efficiency on average, compared with 50 to 55 percent in Europe. More than 90 percent of residential and industrial gas consumers don't have meters. Gas is even cheaper than coal -- Russia is the only large country where that is true -- so incentives to switch to an abundant fuel are weak.

In recent years Russia has boosted gas supplies by squeezing Turkmenistan to sell gas to Russia at a deep discount. But Turkmen gas production is poised to decline, and Turkmenistan's gas industry is barely functional because the country's political environment is scary for long-term investors. Other Central Asian suppliers, notably Kazakhstan, are unlikely to be able to bridge the gap.

Caught between growing internal consumption of gas, continued inefficiency and mounting external obligations, Russia's gas industry faces a looming crisis. Given the country's vast resources, it seems that many producers could fill the void. But a series of policy decisions created two roadblocks that Gazprom has been happy to reinforce. One is the lack of access to the Gazprom-controlled pipeline network, which explains why few companies even bother to look for gas: They know they can't get what they find to market. The other barrier to investment is the low internal prices, which make gas production uneconomic except for companies that can sell their products outside.

Gazprom needs cash -- much more cash -- for investment. At the same time, it needs a strong incentive for former Soviet republics to cut their own very inefficient consumption.

Analysts have ignored the risk that Russia's supplies could fall short because they focus on Russia's vast gas resources and the new Western investors who are -- albeit cautiously -- entering into joint ventures with Gazprom. But those resources and ventures are for the long term, and the looming crisis of supply is unfolding now.

The gas shortage is likely to become most acute over the next few years. If there is an unusually cold winter in 2008, the year of Russia's presidential election, then Gazprom will face a politically unpleasant choice: whether to cut off internal customers (voters) or the Western customers who are the firm's main source of hard cash.

The writer is a research fellow at the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. She is co-author of "Axis of Oil" and of a forthcoming comprehensive review of Russia's gas pipelines.

All News button
1
Subscribe to International Relations